PhRMA Threatening Opposition To Health Care Bill Over Two-Year Drop In Biologics Exclusion

[slipslidingaway]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/01/15/phrma-threatening-opposition-to-health-care-bill-over-two-year-drop-in-biologics-exclusion/

"As I noted earlier, the President used his closed-door meeting with the House Democratic caucus yesterday to announce his support for dropping the exclusivity period for biologic drugs by at least two years. A source familiar with the meeting, whose professional position does not allow public communication with the press, told me that Anna Eshoo, who had been the lead supporter of the 12-year exclusivity period, protested at the meeting, telling the President that this was not right because her position was reflected in both the House and Senate bills. The President replied that he did not agree, that everything was on the table in the negotiations.

The pharmaceutical industry, along with the biotech trade group BIO which reps a lot of biologic makers, went ballistic. FDL News has obtained the text of an email sent by Billy Tauzin, head of the trade group PhRMA, to his board members, wherein he basically announces that they would oppose the final bill if their exclusivity period were to be dropped...

...My source described it as “outrageous” that PhRMA would try to block the bill over a two-year change in the exclusivity rules. “They did think they won this already, and even two years means a lot of money,” said the source. “But it shows you the greed of these companies, that over two years, they’d blow up the bill.”

PhRMA has already been shielded from the reimportation of prescription drugs from abroad, as well as negotiation through Medicare for lower prices. And the biologics language was not even part of their original deal. “This is a violation of their commitment,” said the source..."

[WeDidIt]

1. IF the link says LiarDogFake, the story is 100% bullshit.

Got a legitimate source?

[laughingliberal]

2. So, which part is BS? That Obama supports the 2 year drop in exclusivity or that PhRMA is opposing

the bill? This is not the first source I have seen that said Obama had voiced support for this 2 year drop in the period of exclusivity. I would be pleased to think he is supporting that. I would also think PhRMA would raise bloody hell over that-buncha blood suckers.

[WeDidIt]

3. If the link says LiardogFake, the story is 100% bullshit

Got a legitimate link?

[laughingliberal]

5. It's a shame if it is BS. Would be good to beat the exclusivity period back a little.

But, you're probably right. Our President wouldn't stand up to PhRMA for us, would he?

[laughingliberal]

7. It is, vaguely, mentioned in this article from earlier today

<snip> On a separate issue, makers of generic drugs, backed by the White House and a senior congressional ally, sought to reduce the patent protection that pharmaceutical companies receive for their new-to-market biotech products. The House and Senate bills both limit competition for 12 years, but Obama told Democrats he wanted changes. <snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/14/obama-to-visit-capitol-hi_n_422996.html

But, again, I'm sure you're correct and he is NOT standing up for us against PhRMA. Cause FDL wouldn't tell us if he was, huh?

[laughingliberal]

13. Time.com blog reporting 100% BS, too. Amazing!

President Obama is pushing for a last-minute change in the final health care bill that would shorten the time that expensive biotechnology drugs would be shielded from generic competition, pharmaceutical industry officials said Thursday.
Any White House intervention would be welcome news to generic pharmaceutical companies, as well as to some consumer groups, insurers and big employers, which have complained that the proposed House and Senate bills would not allow for robust competition.


Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/15/health-care-is-obama-taking-on-the-biotech-industry/#ixzz0ckd1oWwD

All these news sources repeating 100% BS. Eerie!

[slipslidingaway]

8. Thanks ...

not much patience with the name calling.

:)

[laughingliberal]

12. You're welcome. Patience not my strong suit, either.

Am still looking for more "100% BS" stories Lol! Have found 3 so far that are not FDL

[slipslidingaway]

16. There are more, but I do not know what the poster considers a ...

legitimate source.

;)

[laughingliberal]

17. I would say there is a preponderance of evidence that the President is asking for this change to the

bill..

Kind of weird. Most of the time we see FDL accused of making up negative information about the President. Just can't please some people.

[slipslidingaway]

18. From the beginning I believe Obama though 7 years was adequate...

to now read he is pushing for a two year reduction makes sense.

:)

[laughingliberal]

20. Yes, that's the position I believed he had taken. Senate and House both were giving them 12

so it does make sense he's asking them to scale it back. He has, just in the last couple of days, supported some of the House measures against the Senate. Won't know what got in to the final bill til we get it back from CBO, probably but he came out in favor of the House's national exchange which is better than that state by state debacle the Senate bill has.

[hootinholler]

27. I'm thinking FreeRepublic

Is their idea of a legitimate source.

:rofl:

-Hoot

[slipslidingaway]

29. Could be .... getting crazy here. :) n/t

[laughingliberal]

9. Another one. Also probably lying about our President standing up for us

President Barack Obama told House Democrats on Thursday that he wants to reduce the amount of time certain biotechnology treatments are protected under an agreement in both the House and Senate bills.

His comments come as negotiators seek billions in additional revenue from the pharmaceutical industry - money that could come from closing this window.

Ironically, his last-minute push, which comes as negotiators try to bridge divisions between the House and Senate bills, undermines one thing that both bills share: a 12-year exclusivity deal allowing the producers of so-called biologics to make and market these treatments without competition from generic manufacturers. One option on the table would reduce the exclusivity period to 10 years, sources say. <snip>

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0110/Obama_talks_biotech_treatment_protections_with_Dems.html

Another discredited source trying to fool us into thinking he is standing up to PhRMA.

[laughingliberal]

10. Huh, Unbelievable how many news sources are printing this 100% BS story

<snip>Beyond that, he was willing to reopen issues where the two bills were identical. One example involved the patent protection that drugmakers would receive for their biotech drugs from generic competitors. The president wants to give generic firms quicker entry into the marketplace, and the pharmaceutical industry's top lobbyist, former Rep. W.J. Tauzin, sent an e-mail threatening to oppose the legislation if that happened. <snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Guess they're all conspiring to make the president look good and piss off PhRMA. Odd, but I'm sure you're correct.

[laughingliberal]

4. “They did think they won this already, and even two years means a lot of money,”

Oh, boo-effing-hoo! I remember when Pfizer squealed like pigs when the patent on Prozac ran out and they were denied an extension. They held a patent for years and the sales of the drug generated $11 billion just in the 1 year period before the patent ran out. I don't see how they feed their families.

[dkf]

6. Well this is one of about 3 things that are ok in this bill.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Many objected to the 12 year period, although it was what the industry

wanted.

:shrug:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/14/senate-help-amendment-on-data-exclusivity/

"...Sen. Tom Harkin: Keep in mind what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about patents. Everybody gets a 20 year patent… What we’re talking about here is data, data exclusivity… How do you get that data? You get it through FDA supervised trials… Where do they do those clinical trials? Academic health centers. Who supports academic health centers? Our taxpayers… When should that data be released so that another company out there, some other entrepreneurs, can look at the data and say… I’ll bet if we changed this and did this, we might come up with a new formulation that might actually help something else. They’re still going to have to go through their clinical trials… At least they’ll be able to look at the data. If you don’t do that that means that the company can sit on that data for 12 years. Then they let the data out. Clinical trials will take another 7 years or more, so you’re going to have at least a whole 20 year run in there… before anyone can ever surface with anything even comparable to what that drug or that biologic is.

****

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Let’s find out why year after year the drug companies make hugh profits, look at why the drug companies have never once, to the best of my knowledge, have never lost a political debate here in Congress… (medicine) doesn’t do anybody any good if they can’t afford it. I think for year after year we’ve been paying a lot of attention to our friends in PhRMA, who are spending, I don’t know what they spend in lobbying and campaign contributions, a whole lot of money. Maybe it’s time that we start worrying about the people who have to pay for this medicine.

****

Sen. Sherrod Brown: You know what we’ve not talked about, Mr. Chairman? We’re not talking about how much these biologics are costing patients. Let me give you some numbers. (examples)… 48 thousand dollars… 20 thousand dollars …100 thousand dollars. You know what the average wage in my state is? 46 thousand dollars… If we do this giveaway to the drug industry, this giveaway to the biologic companies, it means profits are up for them, it means executive salaries are up for them, it means we can all feel good, but let’s think about the patients, let’s think of the patient with breast cancer who has got to spend 1000 dollars a week… the patient with colon cancer who’s got to spend 2000 dollars a week… What kind of progress is that, Mr. Chairman?"

[laughingliberal]

15. Thanks. Looks as if the President did save a couple of things out for us at the end

Still not a good bill but some damage being mitigated here at the last minute. This was a big thing for me. And saw reports last night that he was planning to ask PhRMA to put more money back on the table. Not sure where that will end up but would be glad to see that, also.

[slipslidingaway]

19. It is something, but I still would have liked to see the push for Medicare...

to negotiate drug prices.

Links...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=420430&mesg_id=420457

...so the detailed plan by the candidate that could save up to 300 billion was replaced by a deal with the lobbyist Tauzin for 80 billion. The study referenced in the Obama plan may or may not account for the increased enrollment by the baby boomers, 46 million to 79 million over the next twenty years.

Tauzin got a good deal IMO, Medicare and seniors not so much.

[laughingliberal]

21. True. I would never have believed before this all started that we wouldn't have gotten that fixed

That was Bush's $800 billion dollar give away to the pharmaceutical industry. I am not one of the people who expects we will see this bill 'fixed' after it passes but I do think there is a chance this is one thing that may pass on its own later. I believe it can be done in reconciliation with a simple majority. So many progressives in the Senate were pissed when the reimportation amendment was defeated that I think they will do something to address drug prices.

[slipslidingaway]

22. I sure hope so, if we are worried about the costs of Medicare, this ..

could really help in the near future.

[laughingliberal]

23. Yes, we need to find some savings in Medicare

I know they cut $500 billion and $177 billion is from the Medicare Advantage subsidies (yay!) but I don't think they're going to find the balance in routing out waste, fraud, and abuse.

[slipslidingaway]

30. Agreed and personally I think this is going to be a mess for Medicare ....

and boomers should be prepared to contribute more for their HC in the future.

[laughingliberal]

14. bookmarking & rec

;)

[laughingliberal]

24. kicking for President standing up to PhRMA

Anything that pisses off Billy Tauazin is good by me and good for the American people.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Thanks :) n/t

[Captain Hilts]

32. Giving them 12 years was an outrage and 10 is also bad. That's not 'standing up'. nt

[Canuckistanian]

26. PHuck Billy Tauzin

And PHuck PhRMA, too.

[laughingliberal]

28. Indeed. Phuck him and whatever ill wind blew his ass in.

I would say the horse he rode in on, too, but there's no need to be mean to horses.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Looks like the people are the ones who will be screwed by this deal. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

31. This story isn't getting a lot of press. Makes PhRMA look greedy and the Prez look naive. nt